William Gottlieb Management Co, LLC v. Carlin
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-08907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In William Gottlieb Management v. Carlin, Judge Marrero denied the motion to dismiss Carlin’s counterclaim as moot after Carlin amended it.
William Gottlieb Management, Co., LLC’s earlier motion to dismiss Allan H. Carlin’s counterclaim was denied as moot; the amended counterclaim remained governed by the court’s earlier denial of WGM’s later dismissal motion.
What happened
William Gottlieb Management, Co., LLC v. Allan H. Carlin concerned William Gottlieb Management’s request to dismiss Carlin’s counterclaim. A magistrate judge first recommended granting that request, but Carlin was later allowed to amend his counterclaim.
William Gottlieb Management then moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim. The magistrate judge recommended denying that motion because Carlin had corrected the problems identified earlier, and the court adopted that recommendation and denied the motion.
Judge Victor Marrero reviewed the earlier recommendation and found it legally sound, but declined to adopt it because the issue had become moot after Carlin amended his counterclaim and the later dismissal motion was denied. The court denied the earlier motion to dismiss as moot.
The detailed version
- William Gottlieb Management Co, LLC v. Carlin · No. 1:20-cv-08907
- Victor Marrero
- June 30, 2025
Background
William Gottlieb Management, Co., LLC (WGM) was the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant. Allan H. Carlin was the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff. The dispute in this order concerned WGM’s motions to dismiss Carlin’s counterclaim.
On January 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Moses issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant WGM’s motion to dismiss Carlin’s original counterclaim. The parties were allowed to object, but no objections were filed. Carlin was also allowed to submit an amended counterclaim and supporting legal memorandum.
Later Proceedings
Carlin moved to amend his counterclaim on February 18, 2025. WGM opposed the proposed amendment, and Carlin filed a reply. On May 6, 2025, Magistrate Judge Moses granted Carlin’s motion to amend.
WGM then moved on May 20, 2025, to dismiss the amended counterclaim. On June 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Moses recommended denying that motion because Carlin had corrected the deficiencies identified in the earlier Report and Recommendation. The court adopted that recommendation in full and denied WGM’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero explained that, when no timely objection is filed, a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error on the record. The court reviewed the first recommendation and found it legally sound and proper. However, it declined to adopt that recommendation because Carlin’s amendment and the denial of WGM’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim had made the earlier issue moot, meaning the court no longer needed to decide that earlier motion.
The court therefore denied as moot WGM’s earlier motion to dismiss Carlin’s counterclaim, identified as Docket No. 76. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.